I have been working with so many different programs and methods that I have been a deep state of confusion which is very normal for me. I have managed to come up with a unified approach to the widely separated issues that I deal with. All the areas of science have their utility and in combining technology I can have advantage in synergy of effect. The concept of self replication is inherent in effectiveness of life and is also effective in all other areas. It seems there is a common thread which runs in all these areas and the idea of self programming and AI and self replicating systems can be combined in an effective way to create a better tool for examining and extending the current understanding of the universe in a coherent and more powerful way.

It seems that there is sufficient information available to make this a rational product. To project and extend the individual ability to deal with information rationality. Presently there exists far more data than can be understood and a tool which can be used by an individual to extract the meaning is well in order. I suppose the biggest problem is if it conflicts with your own understanding of what is correct. The 'correctness' of a solution is where agreement must be made in the same way that experimental proof is considered a measure of validity.

Solution conflicts with desire. If I can define the universe in such a way that the subjective logic of personal decision is extended with the same process, would this conflict with the person's own consciousness? I can see that it might. If a program weighs the chances of winning in a poker hand and you 'feel' that you will win, then you would likely refuse to even take the advice of something that you yourself created. That seems a bit absurd to me.

I can define logic for my own intentions and I don't have very complicated motives. My main goal in using my life is to understand and use that information to understand more things. If I created a tool which was an extension of valid logic ( like a digital microprocessor ) and refused to accept that solutions that could be verified experimentally were to be applied, then I would be in conflict with my own intentions and actions.

The idea of open source is somewhat like this. If I create a program which serves to extend my ability to deal with the complexities of life and I share that program with others, then everybody gains. I could certainly create a program that works only for me, but I would be shooting myself in the foot.

A system which is designed to interfere with a process of mutual benefit is inherently wrong for the same reasons. If I create a government whose goal is to interfere with the free and open exchange of information, goods, or tools then it is an established illogical mechanism which is counter to the logic which produces the solution.

This is why I say that government and corporations are irrational. They fail to see the simple logic of common practice. The 'FORD' of the computer age is reasonable common practice. It is a different style of revolution which acts at nanosecond speed and it won't be 100 years before it consumes or destroys the planet. It is not a given that the outcome of advanced understanding is either bad or good or even leads to survival. The only choice is to sit in a loop or BRANCH.